Summary:
This article discusses testing and standards in schools and whether the results really improve student achievement. It explains how testing is both helpful and hurtful. Testing, many educators say, forces them to spend too much time emphasizing test preparation at the expense of more important learning. Advocates argue that testing is said to have a built-in bias against minority groups. Standardized testing combined with the amount of tests given by teachers is entirely too much testing. The time spent on taking the tests takes away from much needed instruction in the classrooms. George W. Bush, a strong supporter of standardized tests, argues that without yearly testing people do not know who is falling behind and who needs help. He believes it is an acceptable way to gauge accountability for the schools and for evaluating the progress of students relative to state and local standards. Anti-testing advocates agree that schools spend too much time preparing students for tests as testing assumes a greater role in assessing student and school performance.
Reaction:
This article provided good support for both sides of the argument, but I only partially agree with this article. I understand the need to help improve schools and I definitely see the importance in it, but I am not a fan of how they are going about it. As discussed in the article, I believe standardized testing is entirely too much testing and I feel it does not properly assess the different schools. The time wasted on assessments could be spent actually learning. The only thing students are being taught is how to "take a test."
Source 2: Scholarly Article- "The New Standards Are Set; Now What?"
Summary:
This article discusses the educational standards and how they are applied to the United States' curriculum. It explains how student achievement is affected by the standards solely being aimed at increasing test scores. The new curriculum standards now demand, whereas before they were guides. The standards have created a rise in educator anxiety, which in turn affects the teachers ability to educate their students. The new standards have also dramatically increased state expenditures for the construction of high-stakes tests, their distribution to schools, their scoring and analysis, and the reporting of scores to schools. The teachers are forced to ignore important content and de-emphasize topics that are valuable to their class because they are untested. If teachers spent the time each day in their efforts to translate ideas and standards into lived practice, their student's achievement would improve.
Reaction:
I agree with this article. I can easily see how student achievement is affected by the standards mainly being aimed at increasing test scores. The educators are so concerned about their classes not scoring high enough on the tests that they forgo important information that may be vital to the class. I could not believe how costly the new standards were, it was a shock to me.
Source 3: Editorial- "Beyond Rhetoric? Three Books and The Educational Standards Debate"
Summary:
This editorial discusses educational standards in the United States in reference to three books. These three books are: "One Size Fits Few: The Folly of Educational Standards," "National Standards in American Education: A Citizen's Guide" and "The Way We Were? The Myths and Realities of America's Student Achievement." These books provide perspectives on the issues about the need and creation of standards. According to the article, standards were created as a way to provide all children with access to challenging content and richer learning experiences as well as to close the achievement gap. There often seems to be only one way to measure student achievement: student's scores on standardized tests. There is a lot riding on these tests and some argue that they encourage teachers to "teach to the test." Most teachers have stopped thinking of these tests as a tool and started using them more as goals/guidelines. People argue that standardized tests are inadequate for measuring student achievement. Assessment methods that are more frequent and tailored to specific student needs would work better at judging student achievement because multiple choice tests promote narrow knowledge and do not raise expectations. Achievement requires more than creating performance standards and tests. Overly-specific standards can prevent teachers from having the space to be responsive to the needs of their students. Formative assessments are considered a better method at judging student achievement. They provide information to teachers and students to be used as feedback to modify teaching and learning. Teachers can monitor individual performances on an ongoing basis, which allows them to identify areas and strategies for additional work, and to make instrumental adjustments in real time to aid in student learning.
Reaction:
I definitely agree with this editorial. It had a lot of good support and I was able to understand whether standards do actually improve student achievement. I know the main way to measure student achievement is through test scores but I believe there should be better ways to measure it. What surprised me, was that some of the teachers voluntarily use "teaching to the test" as goals/guidelines. As discussed in the article, achievement requires more than creating performance standards and tests. I whole-heartedly support the idea of using formative assessments to judge student achievement because it better assesses what students know and easily identifies what the students need to work on while being monitored by the teacher. I like how teachers are able to see where there are issues and use that information to better help their students.
Source 4: National Education Standards: Will They Restrict Local Schools' Flexibility?
Summary:
This article discusses the trends sweeping through the United States public schools: standard-based reforms and the push for accountability. The premise is student achievement can be improved by establishing rigorous statewide-educational standards and tests. Advocates for national standards and tests argue that they need to be established so that parents, educators and policy-makers can know whether their states are doing a good job. Critics complain that imposing higher standards without equalizing education funding further guarantees failure for poor children in failing schools. Many believe the formulation of the standards should involve not just teachers and educators but members of the public. These standards should be reasonably precise and not too lengthy. They should cover both content and performance, and focus on what students should know so that they are well-prepared for subsequent education and careers.
Reaction:
This article primarily supported the idea that standardized tests and the new curriculum standards are effective at judging student achievement. Supporters argued that they are important so parents, educators, and administrators can see if they are doing a good job. I agree that, while it is important for students, teachers and administrators to know if they are working effectively, I do not agree that standardized tests are the way to judge that. As stated by a critic in the article, the standards should involve not only teachers but the public. I also agree that the standards should focus on what the students know, not just how well they can take exams.
Overall Reaction to Your Research
My research focused on if standards actually improve student achievement. There are good arguments both for and against this topic, but overall, I would have to say the new curriculum standards are not that effective at improving student achievement. From my research, I learned the main way to measure achievement is through standardized testing. The standards are mainly being aimed at increasing test scores and not only do the standards drastically increase state expenditures, but they also create teacher anxiety, which in turn effects the way teachers educate their students. For the most part, because teachers are so worried about how well their students will score on the tests, they tend to use the tests as guidelines/goals rather than teaching information that may be important to their classes. They also have relatively little flexibility when teaching. I understand the importance of seeing how well the students, teachers, and administrators are improving, but there are better ways to judge that than by using high-stakes testing. Overly-specific standards can prevent teachers from responding to the needs of their students. Standardized-tests are ineffective at measuring student achievement because they set standards that not everyone can reach. Everyone learns differently and at different rates, so to create tests that gauge "the average student's achievement" is not effective. You cannot assume that every student will be able to do the same thing. Formative assessments are better able to assess student achievement because they are used by both teachers and students to give feedback to modify teaching and learning. The assessments judge individual performance and the teacher has the ability to identify the areas and strategies that may need improvement to better help their students.
Relevance in Rhode Island Schools
How does what you learned in your research inform efforts to reform schools in Rhode Island?
Author: Danielle Santagata
Source 1: Analysis Article- "Testing In Schools: Should Students Be tested Annually?"
Citation: Kenneth, J. (April 20, 2001). Testing In Schools: Should Students Be Tested Annually?. CQ Researcher Online. Retrieved December 7, 2011, from http://0-library.cqpress.com.helin.uri.edu/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2001042000&type=hitlist&num=0.
Summary:
This article discusses testing and standards in schools and whether the results really improve student achievement. It explains how testing is both helpful and hurtful. Testing, many educators say, forces them to spend too much time emphasizing test preparation at the expense of more important learning. Advocates argue that testing is said to have a built-in bias against minority groups. Standardized testing combined with the amount of tests given by teachers is entirely too much testing. The time spent on taking the tests takes away from much needed instruction in the classrooms. George W. Bush, a strong supporter of standardized tests, argues that without yearly testing people do not know who is falling behind and who needs help. He believes it is an acceptable way to gauge accountability for the schools and for evaluating the progress of students relative to state and local standards. Anti-testing advocates agree that schools spend too much time preparing students for tests as testing assumes a greater role in assessing student and school performance.
Reaction:
This article provided good support for both sides of the argument, but I only partially agree with this article. I understand the need to help improve schools and I definitely see the importance in it, but I am not a fan of how they are going about it. As discussed in the article, I believe standardized testing is entirely too much testing and I feel it does not properly assess the different schools. The time wasted on assessments could be spent actually learning. The only thing students are being taught is how to "take a test."
Source 2: Scholarly Article- "The New Standards Are Set; Now What?"
Citation: Davis Jr., O.L.. (2005). The New Standards Are Set; Now What?. EBSCO Host. Retrieved December 7, 2011, from
http://0-web.ebscohost.com.helin.uri.edu/ehost/detail?sid=3254c196-03ff-410c-ab919f024dc58c65%40sessionmgr111&vid=1&hid=119&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=15475271
Summary:
This article discusses the educational standards and how they are applied to the United States' curriculum. It explains how student achievement is affected by the standards solely being aimed at increasing test scores. The new curriculum standards now demand, whereas before they were guides. The standards have created a rise in educator anxiety, which in turn affects the teachers ability to educate their students. The new standards have also dramatically increased state expenditures for the construction of high-stakes tests, their distribution to schools, their scoring and analysis, and the reporting of scores to schools. The teachers are forced to ignore important content and de-emphasize topics that are valuable to their class because they are untested. If teachers spent the time each day in their efforts to translate ideas and standards into lived practice, their student's achievement would improve.
Reaction:
I agree with this article. I can easily see how student achievement is affected by the standards mainly being aimed at increasing test scores. The educators are so concerned about their classes not scoring high enough on the tests that they forgo important information that may be vital to the class. I could not believe how costly the new standards were, it was a shock to me.
Source 3: Editorial- "Beyond Rhetoric? Three Books and The Educational Standards Debate"
Citation: Smith, M. S., & Christensen, G. S. (2004). Beyond Rhetoric? Three Books and the Educational Standards Debate. EBSCO Host. Retrieved December 7, 2011, from http://0-web.ebscohost.com.helin.uri.edu/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=110&sid=fbbc6f66-2125-4b43-b552-6cadaf97af67%40sessionmgr104&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=12847183
Summary:
This editorial discusses educational standards in the United States in reference to three books. These three books are: "One Size Fits Few: The Folly of Educational Standards," "National Standards in American Education: A Citizen's Guide" and "The Way We Were? The Myths and Realities of America's Student Achievement." These books provide perspectives on the issues about the need and creation of standards. According to the article, standards were created as a way to provide all children with access to challenging content and richer learning experiences as well as to close the achievement gap. There often seems to be only one way to measure student achievement: student's scores on standardized tests. There is a lot riding on these tests and some argue that they encourage teachers to "teach to the test." Most teachers have stopped thinking of these tests as a tool and started using them more as goals/guidelines. People argue that standardized tests are inadequate for measuring student achievement. Assessment methods that are more frequent and tailored to specific student needs would work better at judging student achievement because multiple choice tests promote narrow knowledge and do not raise expectations. Achievement requires more than creating performance standards and tests. Overly-specific standards can prevent teachers from having the space to be responsive to the needs of their students. Formative assessments are considered a better method at judging student achievement. They provide information to teachers and students to be used as feedback to modify teaching and learning. Teachers can monitor individual performances on an ongoing basis, which allows them to identify areas and strategies for additional work, and to make instrumental adjustments in real time to aid in student learning.
Reaction:
I definitely agree with this editorial. It had a lot of good support and I was able to understand whether standards do actually improve student achievement. I know the main way to measure student achievement is through test scores but I believe there should be better ways to measure it. What surprised me, was that some of the teachers voluntarily use "teaching to the test" as goals/guidelines. As discussed in the article, achievement requires more than creating performance standards and tests. I whole-heartedly support the idea of using formative assessments to judge student achievement because it better assesses what students know and easily identifies what the students need to work on while being monitored by the teacher. I like how teachers are able to see where there are issues and use that information to better help their students.
Source 4: National Education Standards: Will They Restrict Local Schools' Flexibility?
Citation: Koch, K. (May 14, 1999). National Education Standards: Will They Restrict Local Schools' Flexibility?. CQ Researcher Online. Retrieved December 7, 2011, from http://0-library.cqpress.com.helin.uri.edu/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1999051400&type=hitlist&num=0
Summary:
This article discusses the trends sweeping through the United States public schools: standard-based reforms and the push for accountability. The premise is student achievement can be improved by establishing rigorous statewide-educational standards and tests. Advocates for national standards and tests argue that they need to be established so that parents, educators and policy-makers can know whether their states are doing a good job. Critics complain that imposing higher standards without equalizing education funding further guarantees failure for poor children in failing schools. Many believe the formulation of the standards should involve not just teachers and educators but members of the public. These standards should be reasonably precise and not too lengthy. They should cover both content and performance, and focus on what students should know so that they are well-prepared for subsequent education and careers.
Reaction:
This article primarily supported the idea that standardized tests and the new curriculum standards are effective at judging student achievement. Supporters argued that they are important so parents, educators, and administrators can see if they are doing a good job. I agree that, while it is important for students, teachers and administrators to know if they are working effectively, I do not agree that standardized tests are the way to judge that. As stated by a critic in the article, the standards should involve not only teachers but the public. I also agree that the standards should focus on what the students know, not just how well they can take exams.
Overall Reaction to Your Research
My research focused on if standards actually improve student achievement. There are good arguments both for and against this topic, but overall, I would have to say the new curriculum standards are not that effective at improving student achievement. From my research, I learned the main way to measure achievement is through standardized testing. The standards are mainly being aimed at increasing test scores and not only do the standards drastically increase state expenditures, but they also create teacher anxiety, which in turn effects the way teachers educate their students. For the most part, because teachers are so worried about how well their students will score on the tests, they tend to use the tests as guidelines/goals rather than teaching information that may be important to their classes. They also have relatively little flexibility when teaching. I understand the importance of seeing how well the students, teachers, and administrators are improving, but there are better ways to judge that than by using high-stakes testing. Overly-specific standards can prevent teachers from responding to the needs of their students. Standardized-tests are ineffective at measuring student achievement because they set standards that not everyone can reach. Everyone learns differently and at different rates, so to create tests that gauge "the average student's achievement" is not effective. You cannot assume that every student will be able to do the same thing. Formative assessments are better able to assess student achievement because they are used by both teachers and students to give feedback to modify teaching and learning. The assessments judge individual performance and the teacher has the ability to identify the areas and strategies that may need improvement to better help their students.Relevance in Rhode Island Schools
How does what you learned in your research inform efforts to reform schools in Rhode Island?